Hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity—or wettability—is a key surface characterization metric for titanium used in dental and orthopedic implants. However, the effects of hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity on biological capability remain uncertain, and the relationships between surface wettability and other surface parameters, such as topography and chemistry, are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to identify determinants of surface wettability of titanium and establish the reliability and validity of the assessment. Wettability was evaluated as the contact angle of ddH₂O. The age of titanium specimens significantly affected the contact angle, with acid-etched, microrough titanium surfaces becoming superhydrophilic immediately after surface processing, hydrophobic after 7 days, and hydrorepellent after 90 days. Similar age-related loss of hydrophilicity was also confirmed on sandblasted supra-micron rough surfaces so, regardless of surface topography, titanium surfaces eventually become hydrophobic or hydrorepellent with time. On age-standardized titanium, surface roughness increased the contact angle and hydrophobicity. UV treatment of titanium regenerated the superhydrophilicity regardless of age or surface roughness, with rougher surfaces becoming more superhydrophilic than machined surfaces after UV treatment. Conditioning titanium surfaces by autoclaving increased the hydrophobicity of already-hydrophobic surfaces, whereas conditioning with 70% alcohol and hydrating with water or saline attenuated pre-existing hydrophobicity. Conversely, when titanium surfaces were superhydrophilic like UV-treated ones, autoclaving and alcohol cleaning turned the surfaces hydrorepellent and hydrophobic, respectively. UV treatment recovered hydrophilicity without exception. In conclusion, surface roughness accentuates existing wettability and can either increase or decrease the contact angle. Titanium must be age-standardized when evaluating surface wettability. Surface conditioning techniques significantly but unpredictably affect existing wettability. These implied that titanium wettability is significantly influenced by the hydrocarbon pellicle and other contaminants inevitably accumulated. UV treatment may be an effective strategy to standardize wettability by making all titanium surfaces superhydrophilic, thereby allowing the characterization of individual surface topography and chemistry parameters in future studies.

Light-cured composite resins are widely used in dental restorations to fill cavities and fabricate temporary crowns. After curing, the residual monomer is a known to be cytotoxic, but increasing the curing time should improve biocompatibility. However, a biologically optimized cure time has not been determined through systematic experimentation. The objective of this study was to examine the behavior and function of human gingival fibroblasts cultured with flowable and bulk-fill composites cured for different periods of time, while considering the physical location of the cells with regard to the materials. Biological effects were separately evaluated for cells in direct contact with, and in close proximity to, the two composite materials. Curing time varied from the recommended 20 s to 40, 60, and 80 s. Pre-cured, milled-acrylic resin was used as a control. No cell survived and attached to or around the flowable composite, regardless of curing time. Some cells survived and attached close to (but not on) the bulk-fill composite, with survival increasing with a longer curing time, albeit to <20% of the numbers growing on milled acrylic even after 80 s of curing. A few cells (<5% of milled acrylic) survived and attached around the flowable composite after removal of the surface layer, but attachment was not cure-time dependent. Removing the surface layer increased cell survival and attachment around the bulk-fill composite after a 20-s cure, but survival was reduced after an 80-s cure. Dental-composite materials are lethal to contacting fibroblasts, regardless of curing time. However, longer curing times mitigated material cytotoxicity exclusively for bulk-fill composites when the cells were not in direct contact. Removing the surface layer slightly improved biocompatibility for cells in proximity to the materials, but not in proportion to cure time. In conclusion, mitigating the cytotoxicity of composite materials by increasing cure time is conditional on the physical location of cells, the type of material, and the finish of the surface layer. This study provides valuable information for clinical decision making and novel insights into the polymerization behavior of composite materials.

Implant provisional restorations should ideally be nontoxic to the contacting and adjacent tissues, create anatomical and biophysiological stability, and establish a soft tissue seal through interactions between prosthesis, soft tissue, and alveolar bone. However, there is a lack of robust, systematic, and fundamental data to inform clinical decision making. Here we systematically explored the biocompatibility of fibroblasts and osteoblasts in direct contact with, or close proximity to, provisional restoration materials. Human gingival fibroblasts and osteoblasts were cultured on the “contact” effect and around the “proximity” effect with various provisional materials: bis-acrylic, composite, self-curing acrylic, and milled acrylic, with titanium alloy as a bioinert control. The number of fibroblasts and osteoblasts surviving and attaching to and around the materials varied considerably depending on the material, with milled acrylic the most biocompatible and similar to titanium alloy, followed by self-curing acrylic and little to no attachment on or around bis-acrylic and composite materials. Milled and self-curing acrylics similarly favored subsequent cellular proliferation and physiological functions such as collagen production in fibroblasts and alkaline phosphatase activity in osteoblasts. Neither fibroblasts nor osteoblasts showed a functional phenotype when cultured with bis-acrylic or composite. By calculating a biocompatibility index for each material, we established that fibroblasts were more resistant to the cytotoxicity induced by most materials in direct contact, however, the osteoblasts were more resistant when the materials were in close proximity. In conclusion, there was a wide variation in the cytotoxicity of implant provisional restoration materials ranging from lethal and tolerant to near inert, and this cytotoxicity may be received differently between the different cell types and depending on their physical interrelationships.